deck_validate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description needn't restate it. The description usefully discloses what is inspected (file sync, slide references, geometry), but it does not say whether validation merely reports problems or can repair them, nor whether it is expensive/long-running on large decks.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and object come first and the checks follow. Slight deduction because the check names ('collection slide references', 'element geometry') are dense domain jargon that a single clarifying clause could have grounded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what validation returns - a boolean, a list of issues, per-check status - and it does not. For a read-only diagnostic tool with a fully documented single parameter, that missing result shape is the main remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter, deckId, and schema description coverage is 100% with a UUID format and pattern already specified in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema fully documents the input.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ('Validate') plus a specific resource ('presentation deck integrity'), with three enumerated check domains (PPTX file synchronization, collection slide references, element geometry). This clearly separates it from siblings like deck_read or deck_update, which retrieve or mutate rather than check consistency.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use statement, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given. Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a post-import/post-update consistency check from the check list, but nothing states when validation is warranted or that it should be run before publishing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.